Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Embodied Integrity, Shaping Surgeries and the Profoundly Disabled Child

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Jurisprudence of the Body

Part of the book series: Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies ((PSLS))

Abstract

This chapter seeks to develop our model of ‘embodied integrity’ by addressing its capacity to protect profoundly disabled children from irreversible non-therapeutic bodily interventions and to frame a more appropriate ethico-legal response to their care. Specifically, we suggest that the decision-making process in the controversial case of Ashley X, and much subsequent academic commentary, was impoverished and served to reify understandings of severely disabled children as frozen in a state of perpetual childhood and reducible to their bodies. In contrast, the conception of embodied integrity that we flesh out in this chapter takes account of these children’s corporeality while also recognising that they are entangled in institutional and familial contexts. Responding to evidence of a growing demand for growth attenuation and shaping surgeries we argue that our embodied understanding of integrity promotes the immediate and future interests of children, including those who are profoundly disabled.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, in the matter of an Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review [2018] UKSC 27.

  2. 2.

    See also A Local Authority v P (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) The NHS Trust, A Family Member [2018] EWCOP 10.

  3. 3.

    See e.g. Hercegfalvy v Austria (1992) 15 EHRR 437.

References

  • — (2007, October 8). Let the Mother Decide, The Daily Telegraph.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2007, October 10). Mother’s plea to Remove Disabled Katie’s Womb, Brentwood Gazette.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2007, January 9). Ashley X and the Perils of Morality, The New Zealand Herald, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2007, January 2007). Welcome to Ashley’s Blog, Dedicated for the Wellbeing of Pillow Angels, Prepared by her Parents., PillowAngel.org

  • — (2012, March 17). Tom Becomes First Boy to Receive Ashley Treatment Topnews, UAE.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2017, January 5). Where are they Now? Portland Tribune, Portland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, D. (2007, January 10). Don’t Judge Us, Brentwood Gazette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alghrani, A. (2018). Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge: CUP. New Horizons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ammaturo, F. (2016). Intersexuality and the “Right to Bodily Integrity”: Critical Reflections on Female Genital Cutting, Circumcision and Intersex “Normalising” Surgeries in Europe. Social & Legal Studies, 25, 591–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arstein-Kerlake, A., & Flynn, E. (2016). The General Comment on Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Roadmap for Equality Before the Law. 20 International Journal of Human Rights 471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, C. (2007, January 4). Parents Defend Decision to Keep Girl a Child. The Times, London, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantekas, I., Stein, M. A., & Anastasiou, D. (Eds.). (2018). The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary. New York: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, N. D., Scialli, R. A., & Bobela, S. (2002). The Current Use of Estrogens for Growth Suppressant Therapy in Adolescent Girls. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 15, 23–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, E. (2016). The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, C. (2012, March 16). Should Parents Stop their Very Disabled Children from Growing up? Father Sparks Debate about Treatment that Could Spread to UK. MailOnline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowcott, O. (2007, October 8). Mother Defends Hysterectomy for Disabled Daughter: Campaigners Say Surgery Raises Ethical Issues. Removal of Womb ‘in Best Interests’ of Girl, 15. The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, M. (1990). Down the Slippery Slope. Professional Negligence, 6, 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, M. (2009). Introduction: Being Human: Of Liberty and Privilege. In S. Smith & R. Deazley (Eds.), The Legal, Medical and Cultural Regulation of the Body: Transformation and Transgression. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, J. (2005). Caring for Children with Severe Disabilities: Boundaried and Relational Rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 13(1–2), 99–120. ISSN 0927-5568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, D., & Dorfman, D. (2007). Investigative Report Regarding the “Ashley Treatment”. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, 8 May <http://dredf.org/public-policy/ethics/investigative-report-regarding-the-ashley-treatment/≥ Accessed 16 June 2018.

  • Clark, P., & Vasta, L. (2006). The Ashley Treatment: An Ethical Analysis. The Internet Journal of Law, Healthcare and Ethics, 5(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke-Pearson, D. L., & Geller, E. J. (2013). Complications of Hysterectomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 121(3), 654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, B. A. (2018). New Legal Landscapes: (Re)Constructing the Boundaries of Mental Capacity Law. Medical Law Review, 26, 246–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. (2007, January 15). The Ashley Experiment Should Never Be Repeated. Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, D. (1995). The Imaginary Domain: Abortion, Pornography and Sexual Harassment. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, D. (2002). Anti-Racism, Multiculturalism and the Ethics of Identification. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 28(4), 419–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekema, D. S., & Fost, N. (2010). Ashleigh Revisited: A Response to the Peer Commentaries. American Journal of Bioethics, 10, 4–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, C. (2018). Governing Legal Embodiment: On the Limits of Self Declaration. Feminist Legal Studies, 26, 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, M. (2010). Healthcare Decision-Making and the Law: Autonomy, Capacity and the Limits of Liberalism. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, M. (2017). Changing Values and Growing Expectations: The Evolution of Capacity Law. Current Legal Problems, 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. D. (2008). The Ashley Treatment: A Step Too Far or Not Far Enough? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 341–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. D. (2011). The Case of Ashley X. Clinical Ethics, 6, 39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, J., & Rosenbaum, S. A. (2019). Revisiting Ashley X: An Essay on Disabled Bodily Integrity, Sexuality, Dignity and Family Caregiving. Touro Law Review, 35(2019), 101–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabre, C. (2006). Whose Body is it Anyway? Justice and the Integrity of the Person. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1992). The Child’s Right to an Open Future. In Freedom and Fulfilment: Philosophical Essays (pp. 76–89). Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, G (2016, March 22). Should Parents of Children with Severe Disabilities be Allowed to Stop Their Growth? NYTimes.com.

  • Fineman, M. (2010). The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State. Emory Law Journal, 60, 251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M. (2011). “Elderly” as Vulnerable: Rethinking the Nature of Individual and Societal Responsibility. Elder Law Journal, 20(1), 71–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M. A. (2013). Equality, Autonomy, and the Vulnerable Subject in Law and Politics. In M.A. Fineman & A. Grear (Eds.) Vulnerability: Reflections on a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics (pp. 13–28). Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, R., Fox, M., & McCandless, J. (2008). Legal Embodiment: Analysing the Body of Healthcare Law. Medical Law Review, 16, 321–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, E., & Arstein-Kerlake, A. (2014). Legislating Personhood: Realizing the Right to Support in Exercising Legal Capacity. International Journal of Law in Context, 10, 81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M., & Murphy, T. (2013). The Body, Bodies, Embodiment: Feminist, Legal Engagement with Health. In M. Davies & V. Munro (Eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory (pp. 249–267). Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M., & Thomson, M. (2017). Bodily Integrity, Embodiment and the Regulation of Parental Choice. Journal of Law & Society, 44(4), 501–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M., Thomson, M., & Warburton, J. (2019). Non-therapeutic Male Genital Cutting & Harm: Law, Policy, & Evidence from UK Hospitals. Bioethics, 33(4), 467–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frader, J. E. (2007). Ashley’s Case. Paediatric Research, 61, 517–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (1988). Sterilising the Mentally Handicapped. In Freeman (Ed.), Medicine Ethics and the Law. Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freund, P. (2001). Bodies, Disability and Spaces: The Social Model and Disabling Spatial Organisations. Disability & Society, 16, 689–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Feminist Theory, the Body, and the Disabled Figure. In J. L. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland-Thomson, R. (2002). Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 14(2), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, R., Jensen, M. B., Nielsen, J., Ewertz, M., Kroman, N., & Kehlet, H. (2009). Prevalence of and Factors Associated with Persistent Pain Following Breast Cancer Surgery. JAMA, 302(18), 1985–1992

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldzieher, M. A. (1956). Treatment of Excessive Growth in the Adolescent Female. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 16(2), 249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabham, E. (2012). Bodily Integrity and the Surgical Management of Intersex. Body & Society, 18, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, E. (2018). The Incorporeal: Ontology, Ethics and the Limits of Materialism. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, D. F., & Diekema, D. S. (2006). Attenuating Growth in Children with Profound Developmental Disability: A New Approach to an Old Dilemma. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 1013–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. (2016). The Role of Support in Sexual Decision-Making for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Ohio State Law Journal, 77, 83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegginbotham, C. (1989). Sterilising People with Mental Handicaps. In S. Mc Lean (Ed.), Legal Issues in Human Reproduction. Dartmouth: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, J., & Wall, J. (2017). The Nature and Significance of the Right to Bodily Integrity. Cambridge Law Journal, 76, 566–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, B., & Paterson, K. (1997). The Social Model of Disability and the Disappearing Body: Towards a Sociology of Impairment. Disability & Society, 12, 325–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, A. (1997). Bodies of Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, I., & Grubb, A. (2000). Kennedy and Grubb Medical Law (3rd ed.). London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keywood, K. (1995). Sterilising the Woman with Learning Difficulties – In her Best Interests? In J. Bridgeman & S. Millns (Eds.), Law and Body Politics. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E. F. (2011). Forever Small: The Strange Case of Ashley X. Hypatia, 26, 610–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koll, M. (2010). Growth Interrupted: Nontherapeutic Growth Attenuation, Parental Medical Decision Making and the Profoundly Developmentally Disabled Child’s Right to Bodily Integrity. University of Illinois Law Review, 2010(1), 225–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjerulff, K. H., Rhodes, J. C., Langenberg, P. W., & Harvey, L. A. (2000). Patient Satisfaction with Results of Hysterectomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 183(6), 1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuusisto, S. (2012). When Is a Failure of Imagination Dangerous? Hastings Centre Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantos, J. (2010). It’s Not the Growth Attenuation, It’s the Sterilization! American Journal of Bioethics, 10, 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latimer, J. (2019). Science under Siege? Being alongside the Life Sciences, Giving Science Life. The Sociological Review Monographs, 67(2), 264–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latimer, J., & Lopez Gomez, D. (2019). Intimate Entanglements: Affects, More-than-Human Intimacies and the Politics of Relations in Science and Technology. The Sociological Review Monographs, 67(2), 246–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leder, D. (1990). The Absent Body. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. (1988). From D. to B. to T.: Sterilising Mentally Handicapped Teenagers., 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. M., & Howell, J. D. (2006). Tall Girls: The Shaping of a Medical Therapy. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160, 1035–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R., & Morgan, D. (1988). Sterilisation and Mental Handicap: Sapping the Strength of the State. Journal of Law and Society, 15, 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2007, January 6). The Moral Line in Medicine Shifts Once Again The Independent, London, 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsett, M. B. (1977). Estrogen Use and Cancer Risk. JAMA, 237, 1112–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, B. (2010). The Limits of Parental Authority. American Journal of Bioethics, 10, 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludbook, R. (1995–6). The Child’s Right to Bodily Integrity. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 7: 123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, W. A. (1975). What Can We Do About Tall Girls? Arch Dis Child, 50, 671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazor, J. (2019). ‘On the Strength of Children’s Right to Bodily Integrity: The Case of Circumcision? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGhee, T. (2016, May 24). Controversial Procedure. The Denver Post, 1A.

    Google Scholar 

  • McVeigh, K. (2012a, March 16). The “Ashley Treatment”: Erica’s’ story. The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • McVeigh, K. (2012b, March 16). Growth Attenuation Treatment: Tom, the First Boy to Undergo Procedure. The Guardian, Accessed 6 June 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/16/growth-attenuation-treatment-toms-story

  • Miller, R. A. (2007). The Limits of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery and Rape Legislation in Comparative Perspective (1st ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morland, I. (2008). Intimate Violations: Intersex and the Ethics of Bodily Integrity. Feminism & Psychology, 18(3), 425–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser, I. (2005). On Becoming Disabled and Articulating Alternatives. The Multiple Modes of Ordering Disability and their Interferences. Cultural Studies, 19(6), 667–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naffine, N. (1998). The Legal Structure of Self-Ownership: Or the Self-Possessed Man and the Woman Possessed. Journal of Law & Society, 25(2), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naffine, N. (2003). Who Are Law’s Persons? From Cheshire Cats to Responsible Subjects. Modern Law Review., 66(3), 346–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NHS Choices. (2017, May 14). Mastectomy – Complications. NHS Choices, http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Mastectomy/Pages/Complications.aspx

  • Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement: A Sociological Approach. London: St Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2013). The Social Model of Disability: Thirty Years on. Disability & Society, 28, 1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, A. R. (2008). Growth Attenuation, Parental Choice, and the Rights of Disabled Children: Lessons from the Ashley X Case. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, 8, 207–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overboe, J. (1999). Difference in Itself’: Validating Disabled People’s Lived Experience. Body & Society, 5(4), 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavia, W. (2016, March 24). Parents Drug their Disabled Children to Stunt Growth. The Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peace, W. J., & Roy, C. (2014). Scrutinizing Ashley X: Presumed Medical “Solutions” vs Real Social Adaptation. Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law, 14, 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, E. (2007, January 8). Parents of Disabled Children Ask Doctors for “Ashley Treatment”. The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington E. (2012, March 15). Ashley Treatment on the Rise Amid Concerns from Disability Rights Groups. The Guardian, Accessed 6 June 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/15/ashley-treatment-rise-amid-concerns.

  • Priaulx, N. (2008). Rethinking Progenitive Conflict: Why Reproductive Autonomy Matters. Medical Law Review, 16(2), 169–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prigg, M. (2007, January 5). How Can they Mutilate Ashley? The Evening Standard. London, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rane, A., & Ohizua, O. (1998). “Acute” Residual Ovary Syndrome. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 38, 447–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rask, O., Nilsson, K. O., & Berntorp, E. (2008). Oestrogen Treatment of Constitutional Tall Stature in Girls: Is there a Risk of Thrombosis or Bleeding? Acta Pediatrica, 97(3), 342–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, J., & Clements, L. (2004). Demonstrably Awful: The Right to Life and the Selective Non-Treatment of Disabled Babies and Children. Journal of Law and Society, 31(4), 482–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saletan, W. (2007, January 20). Girl, Interrupted Slate Magazine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandland, R. (2013). Sex and capacity: the management of monsters? Modern Law Review, 76(6), 981–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savell, K. (2003–4). Sex and the Sacred: Sterilization and Bodily Integrity in English and Canadian Law. McGill LJ, 49, 1093–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekellariou, D., & Rotarou, E. S. (2017). The Effects of Neoliberal Policies on Access to Healthcare for People with Disabilities. International Journal for Equity in Health, 16, 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Series, L., & Nilsson, A. (2018). Article 12 CRPD: Equal Recognition before the Law. In I. Bantekas, M. A. Stein, & D. Anastasiou (Eds.), The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary (pp. 339–382). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serna et al., (1997). Assessing Same/Different Judgements in Individuals with Severe Intellectual Disabilities: A Status Report. Research in Developmental Disabilities 18(5), 343–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare, T. (2013). The Social Model of Disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (4th ed., pp. 214–221). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, E. (2016). Against the Mandatory Use of Neurointerventions in Criminal Sentencing. In D. Birks & T. Douglas (Eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neuro- Interventions in Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shone, M. (1987). Mental Health – Sterilization of Mentally Retarded Persons – Parens Patriae Power: Re Eve. The Canadian Bar Review, 66, 635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, M. (2005). The Disabled Body, Genealogy and Undecidability. Cultural Studies, 9(6), 755–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimon, I., & Barkan, A. (2012). Estrogen Treatment for Acromegaly. Pituitary, 15, 601–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (2007, January 26). A Convenient Truth, The New York Times, Accessed 1 Sep 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26singer.html

  • Smock, A. (2007, October 9). Americans with Disabilities Affirm Katie Thorpe’s Right to Bodily Integrity, Feminist Response in Disability Activism, Accessed 10 Aug 2019. http://fridanow.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/americans-with-disabilities-affirm.html

  • Sobsey, D. (2009). Cutting Edge Treatment: Pain and Surgery in the Ashley X Case. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 37(1–2), 63–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, N. (2008). The Role of Medicine in the (Trans)Formation of ‘Wrong’ Bodies. Body & Society, 14(1), 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szmukler, G. (2019). “Capacity”, “Best Interests”, “Will and Preferences” and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. World Psychiatry, 18(1), 34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, L. (2007, January 4). Surgery to Stunt Disabled girl’s Growth Raises Ethical Questions; some Decry “Eugenics”. The Associated Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, M. (2010). A Tale of Two Bodies: The Male Body in Feminist Legal Theory. In M. Fineman (Ed.), Transcending the Boundaries of Law (pp. 143–155). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, M. (2018). Bioethics and Vulnerability: Recasting the Objects of Ethical Concern. Emory Law Journal, 67(6), 1207–1233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trombley, S. (1988). The Right to Reproduce: A History of Coercive Sterilization. Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsvirko, N. (2015, 29 October). Severely Disabled New Zealand Girl, 10, Will Never Become a Woman after Parents Give her Controversial Hormone Therapy to Stunt her Growth. MailOnline, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallis, M. (2005, January 5). “What Is Best for this Child?”: Disabled Rights Case: Parents Stunt the Growth of their “Pillow Angel”. National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post), Canada, A3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viens, A. M. (2017). The Right to Bodily Integrity. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilford, B. S., et al. (2010). Navigating Growth Attenuation in Children with Profound Disabilities: Children’s Interests, Family Decision-Making, and Community Concerns. Hastings Center Report, 40(6), 27–40. Seattle Growth Attenuation and Ethics Working Group http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40928341.pdf?_=1467368052302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. J., & Bendelow, G. (1998). The Lived Body: Sociological Themes, Embodied Issues. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley R (et al) (2018) Growth Attenuation Therapy for Children with Severe Physical and Cognitive Disability: Practice and Perspectives of New Zealand Paediatricians Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 53(12): 1180–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law & Social Justice, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Marie Fox

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Michael Thomson

  3. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Michael Thomson & Joshua Warburton

Authors
  1. Marie Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Thomson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua Warburton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Fox .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Chris Dietz

  2. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Mitchell Travis

  3. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Michael Thomson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fox, M., Thomson, M., Warburton, J. (2020). Embodied Integrity, Shaping Surgeries and the Profoundly Disabled Child. In: Dietz, C., Travis, M., Thomson, M. (eds) A Jurisprudence of the Body. Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42200-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42200-4_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42199-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42200-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation